who were behind 9/11?
 

After watching this video, I am not so sure anymore it was Osama and friends.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Umm... beware, people usually get really pissed if you bring this up on this forum. There's an old thread where we me and the late SpearsBritney get into a heated debate against some other 2+2rs about it, you should look it up. "WTC" was in the title.

PM if you want some even better links and such. There's a lot of compelling evidence out there that definitely deserves to be sorted through. Beware though, you might come out of it a depressed hopeless countryless old man.

-Kyle

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aren't going to listen to people with poor grammar/spelling, you might as well stop reading this forum.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you aren't going to listen to people with poor grammar/spelling, you might as well stop reading this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
I all but have. This forum just doesn't hold a lot of interest for me anymore.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

It starts out with a reporter who said the second plane didn't look like a commercial plane, because he didn't see any windows on the side. Where was the reporter that he could see the side of the plane? If he was on the ground, how could he see the side of the plane?

Everyone saw the second plane hit the tower on TV. It was a commercial flight.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

I only watched 2 minutes of your video. Please tell us the ending. It was teh alienzorz!!!111!one!!! that did it, right? We never should have screwed with them at area 51!!!one!!!11.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

If anybody cares, here's the link to the original thread. If you have a question regarding the 9/11 conspiracy, chances are somebody already asked it in that thread. And chances are that I or SpearsBritney answered it. Check it out if you got some time.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

He makes the same mistake as many other documentary film-makers. He exaggerates a few claims which are not correct and thus bring down the overall credibility of the film. I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I remember seeing something about this both from the conspiracy theory side and the reality side. The conspiracy theorists said that the fire couldn't have melted the steel support beams, but the real firefighters and engineers said it wouldn't need to melt, just become distorted from the heat and that would compromise the structural integrity.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

I really don't want to watch an hour long video so summarize please so I can rip apart your claims. Thank You.

Melch

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

I just watched the first 5 minutes. The "narrator" sounds like a high school kid. Which means that he is certainly an expert in analyzing video, physics, aeronautics and engineering. It is part of no child left behind. The US government definitely did this.





I really don't understand how people can be smart enough to use a computer, find a video on the internet, watch it. Then be dumb enough to believe what it says especially in this case.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Come on folks, we all know that Bush arranged 9/11 as the first step in his prearranged campaign of manipulation to conquer Iraq. The evidence is in every Iraq thread on this forum. Isn't it obvious?

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an easy one. Because, ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO HIM! DUH!

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He makes the same mistake as many other documentary film-makers. He exaggerates a few claims which are not correct and thus bring down the overall credibility of the film. I.e. he says the fire could not bring down the building. The fire could definately bring down the building. Fire fighters don't like lightweight buildings like WTC since they do not absorb high amounts of energy.

I personally think the Pennsylvania plane was shut down though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was shot down, it would have broken apart in the air. The impact crater is consistent with a nose-dive at a high rate of speed (most crashes are glides into the ground at a slower rate).

I don't think it's unreasonable to think it would have been shot down if it was airborne much longer.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Bush orchastrated 9/11 so that the public would be focused on terrorism, thereby allowing him and Halliburton to blow up the levys in New Orleans.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how people can be smart enough to use a computer, find a video on the internet, watch it. Then be dumb enough to believe what it says especially in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I really don't understand how people can be smart enough to use a computer, find a video on the internet, watch it. Then be dumb enough to believe what it says especially in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Pull the wool from your eyes. In a mere 27 steps starting with the Kennedy assassination, I can prove that today's Iraq quagmire was planned by the Bush family and their willing cohorts. Get your head out of the sand, man.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anybody cares, here's the link to the original thread. If you have a question regarding the 9/11 conspiracy, chances are somebody already asked it in that thread. And chances are that I or SpearsBritney answered it. Check it out if you got some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you get a cut of that video's profits or what?

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Really stupid post.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't want to watch an hour long video so summarize please so I can rip apart your claims. Thank You.

Melch

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't want to watch, fine. Im not claiming anything, just that the video made me think about the whole event again and that it cast doubt on what I thought I knew what happened on 9/11.

I have no clear judgement on the issue and would rather not believe the claims in the video. I also have serious doubt about the methods they use, and find some of the issues they adress bogus. Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint). Cause and effect don't seem to correspond very well. This is one of the issues adressed in the video.

Anyway, I will not summarize the claims of the video as Cumulonimbus refered me to a thread that had discussion on most of them, i'll read that first.

Marnix

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Tom, I too believe that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down. When the plane abruptly changed course over Cleveland (it was already known by this time that it had been hijacked) two fighters were scrambled from the airforce base in Dayton, Ohio. They would've caught up with this plane precisely where the plane went down.
Also, there is reason to believe that the order had already been given. It's not clear if Bush had given the order, but it's fairly certain that Cheney had.
Moreover, Rumsfeld, in a press conference mentioned, "when the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down" then, after realizing what he just said, corrected himself. There's no reason to believe that the plane couldn't have been shot down, it has been a long standing policy to do such, just never been enforced before. If you recall a few years ago the situation with the golfer in a private plane that was flying around aimlessly over the midwest and ultimately crashed (they had lost pressure and everyone on board fell unconscious) the order had already been given to shoot it down, they were just waiting until it the debris would fall into a less populated area before shooting it down. However, the plane began to plummet before they had the opportunity they wanted to shoot it down. I think the administration just does not want to admit that they are responsible for the incident over Pennsylvania. Of course, it is entirely reasonable that they did not shoot it down, I just feel that, after three planes had been used as missles, they didn't want to take any chances and brought it down. By the way, it is possible to take a plane down without it breaking up into a million pieces.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another of the conspiracy theorists' claims that I haven't understood. If it's so illogical that the buildings would collapse this way, why wouldn't the gov't rig the building to collaps on surrounding buildings and cause more damage? Obviously they aren't concerned with lives or $'s of damage since they're doing it anyway. So if they're so smart that they can rig this entire scheme to go off without a hitch, why finish it in some illogical fashion and blow their credibility? Is it totally outside the realm of possibility that what happened is naturally what would happen if a plane crashed into such a building?

Shouldn't a computer program be able to show what happened in virtual reality and be able to repeat this and adjust for the variables involved?

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Osama didn't do this. It was the Illuminati but the Illuminati isn't really the bad guy. The bad guys are the Jesuits. The Illuminati are really trying free everyone from Jesuit rule but they have to do things like 911 to apease the Jesuits and trick them into thinking that they are a puppet group of the Jesuits. The Jesuits aren't really the top of the pyramid though. They are controlled by reptilian arachnids who live in the center of the earth. The earth, you see, is really hollow and the master race of reptillian arachnids reign from in there. Tolken was a clandestine Jesuit agent and Shelob and Orcs were meant to represent the reptillian arachnids. Also, did you notice that Darth Maul was reptilian looking and the robot leader in Revenge of the Sith looked kinda like a spider. Oh yeah, that is spooky! I think George Lucas is really a reptillian amphibian (the arachnids are too important to come to the surface world, amphibians are lesser beings).

There is so much more to this. PM me and I'll get more into it.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some parts were interesting, I recommend to watch it.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still I've always had a hard time understanding how the WTC towers 1,2 & especially 7 collapsed in they way the did (fast and on their own footprint).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is another of the conspiracy theorists' claims that I haven't understood. If it's so illogical that the buildings would collapse this way, why wouldn't the gov't rig the building to collaps on surrounding buildings and cause more damage? Obviously they aren't concerned with lives or $'s of damage since they're doing it anyway. So if they're so smart that they can rig this entire scheme to go off without a hitch, why finish it in some illogical fashion and blow their credibility? Is it totally outside the realm of possibility that what happened is naturally what would happen if a plane crashed into such a building?

Shouldn't a computer program be able to show what happened in virtual reality and be able to repeat this and adjust for the variables involved?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very complex to simulate what would happen exactly, but basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure. Then again, neither can I say it is 'totally outside of the realm of possibility' that what happened could have been caused by the plane crashes.

On buildings 1 & 2 that is. Which leaves the odd collapse of 7. If the fire caused it to collapse, that would be a huge enigeering failure.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I haven't taken a physics class, but I would think that several hundred tons of building collapsing and gaining momentum wouldn't take all that long. Why would it take longer after total structural failure if it's caused by an airplane as opposed to demolition?

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
basic physics says it is not very likely that a building like the WTC tower collapses in 10seconds total after structural failure.

[/ QUOTE ]
Mind you, I haven't taken a physics class, but I would think that several hundred tons of building collapsing and gaining momentum wouldn't take all that long. Why would it take longer after total structural failure if it's caused by an airplane as opposed to demolition?

[/ QUOTE ]

The towers collapsed in 10 seconds, which corresponds with the time an object would need to fall down from the height of the building. If a building collapses because of structural failure on the upper or intermediate floors, first the upper part would fall on floor where the support fails. Then the support of a lower floor would fail, the building falls further down, etc. This process gain momentum quickly, but because of the resistance (or "friction") of the underlying structure, it would take more than the freefall time of an object falling down from the same altitude. Maybe if things lined up perfectly the difference would be hard to notice, I don't know enough about it to make an educated guess.

But like I said previously, it's the collapse of building 7 that really puzzles me.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Did Osama claim responsibility for the attack?

9/10 surely
 

I was guessing the same people who were on the grassy knoll but then I thought Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld.

Then somebody told me it was Cheney and Rumsfeld on the grassy knoll! It all makes sense.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

The idea that the planes and ensuing fire could not cause the towers to collapse is quite comical. The ignorance of many a poster is astounding. I have a degree in engineering and fire prevention. Unless you have similar expertise and can give me a legitimate reason why the towers couldn't collapse, Shut The F Up.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

As you could see I typed that I think that was what happened, but thinking that you have a monopoly of analyzing this since you have a degree is very arrogant and incorrect. You need more than a degree to know if what the professors tell you is correct or not. I would take an analytical modest person's opinion over an arrogant expert.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As you could see I typed that I think that was what happened, but thinking that you have a monopoly of analyzing this since you have a degree is very arrogant and incorrect. You need more than a degree to know if what the professors tell you is correct or not. I would take an analytical modest person's opinion over an arrogant expert.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow.

Just wow.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As you could see I typed that I think that was what happened, but thinking that you have a monopoly of analyzing this since you have a degree is very arrogant and incorrect. You need more than a degree to know if what the professors tell you is correct or not. I would take an analytical modest person's opinion over an arrogant expert.

[/ QUOTE ]
And my point is that people who have no knowledge of lightweight highrise construction and fire behavior are spouting off opinions as fact just because they see/hear/read something somewhere. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if they want to add something to the discussion, why not deal in facts and science.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why I should listen to someone who starts off the thread with "who were"...?

[/ QUOTE ]

you shouldnt if you don't want to. Excuse me for my grammar errors, im not a native english speaker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry then. But this topic has been covered here and I'd rather not watch an hour long rehash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some parts were interesting, I recommend to watch it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched it. I found it interesting. A lot (most) of it is hogwash, but there were a couple of things that I did find pretty compelling. If anything, it'll make me do a little research into some of the claims he made.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

What counts as science isn't entirely objective. Not to discredit your claim. I agree with you that the planes are capable of brining down the towers and I'm sure you're much more knowledgable about buildings, but to think that engineering and science aren't infuenced by policy and opinion is incorrect.

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

Here's some random links I have for any of you guys that want to further your investigations.

ABC- Operation Northwoods (a must read!)

VIDEO: Owner of WTCs admits they "pulled" the building

911 Truth Very informative and reliable stuff. You should spend a lot of time here.

EDIT: And two pre-collapse images of the Pentagon. These are what initially drew me in.

http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/pentagonhole.jpg

http://212.87.68.69/phpwebsite/image...goncompare.jpg

Flame away.

-Kyle

EDIT 2 - Man, I haven't gotten into this stuff forever. I stopped thinking about it a while ago cuz it just makes ya sad. Anyways, I found a cool little video ... not much for 9/11 evidence, but it illustrates the motives behind it. This was found at 911truth.org

Re: who were behind 9/11?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that the planes and ensuing fire could not cause the towers to collapse is quite comical. The ignorance of many a poster is astounding. I have a degree in engineering and fire prevention. Unless you have similar expertise and can give me a legitimate reason why the towers couldn't collapse, Shut The F Up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banks, I haven't said that the towers could not have collapsed because of the plane crashes, only that the way how they collapsed struck me as inconsistent with the damage.

Also, I have stressed a few times that I am mainly interested in WTC tower 7 - the 47 story building that collapsed later on the day. I have a degree in architecture and engineering, and although I am not a fire-prevention specialist, I have been trained in designing buildings to perform under heavy strain. I cannot explain how the fires in building 7 could have caused it to collapse like it did (symmetrical, fast, on its own footprint). And I know they shouldnt have.

Maybe you can explain it to me with your expertise?

Marnix